IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10804

In the Matter of: CENGIZ J. COMU

 Debtor

-----------------------------------------

CENGIZ J. COMU, also known as CJ Comu, 

 Appellant

v.

KING LOUIE MINING, L.L.C.; KING LOUIE ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.; 

RONALD KATZ; DIANE G. REED, 

 Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC 3:14-CV-4163

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 9, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10804 Document: 00513541230 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2016
No. 15-10804

2

The bankruptcy court revoked Debtor-Appellant Cengiz Comu’s 

discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(d), which the district court ultimately 

affirmed on appeal. Comu now likewise asks our court to set aside the 

bankruptcy court’s order revoking his bankruptcy discharge. For the same 

reasons assigned in the district court’s thorough opinion, we affirm the 

bankruptcy court’s revocation order. 

Because the bankruptcy court’s 141-page opinion exhaustively details 

the underlying facts, we offer merely a brief sketch of the background. In 

December 2009, Comu filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. As 

the evidence at trial revealed, Comu’s bankruptcy filing was prompted by a 

default judgment entered against him in a New York state court civil action. 

That action had been initiated by the Appellees in the instant case, who alleged 

in the state court suit that Comu had committed common law fraud and 

securities fraud in their previous business dealings. After filing his 

bankruptcy petition, Comu attended a creditors meeting in February 2010, at 

which he testified under oath regarding the veracity of his bankruptcy filings. 

Thereafter, in April 2010, Comu’s claimed debts, including the debt owed to 

Appellees from the New York default judgment, were discharged by the 

bankruptcy court. 

In September 2010, Appellees timely filed the underlying adversary 

proceeding seeking a revocation of Comu’s bankruptcy discharge pursuant to 

11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1) and (2). The bankruptcy trustee thereafter intervened in 

the adversary proceeding charging Comu with intentionally failing to disclose 

substantial assets belonging to the bankruptcy estate. Following a five-day 

bench trial, the bankruptcy court issued a bench ruling finding in favor of 

Appellees and the Trustee. Thereafter, the bankruptcy court entered its 

 Case: 15-10804 Document: 00513541230 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2016
No. 15-10804

3

findings of fact and conclusions of law concluding that revocation of the 

discharge was warranted “due to a substantial number of false oaths made 

with fraudulent intent (which continued through trial), and due to substantial 

undisclosed assets and valuable interests.” The bankruptcy court further 

found that there was “ample evidence” that Appellees “did not know the true 

facts pertaining to Comu’s false oaths and undisclosed assets until after the 

Discharge Date” and that Appellees “did not know about Comu’s fraud prior to 

the Discharge Objection Deadline.” Comu then appealed the bankruptcy 

court’s order to the district court, which affirmed. This appeal followed. 

“This Court reviews the district court’s decision by applying the same 

standard of review to the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and findings of 

fact that the district court applied.” In re Woerner, 783 F.3d 266, 270 (5th Cir. 

2015) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). “We thus review factual 

findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” In re Frazin, 732 F.3d 

313, 317 (5th Cir. 2013). Importantly, we have also observed that “[t]he right 

to a discharge in bankruptcy is addressed to the sound discretion of the 

bankruptcy court, and appellate courts should interfere only for the most 

cogent, compelling reasons in situations of gross abuse.” United States v. 

Cluck, 87 F.3d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citation omitted). 

In the instant case, the bankruptcy court granted revocation of the 

discharge pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of 11 U.S.C. § 727(d), which 

respectively provide that a discharge shall be revoked if:

(1) such discharge was obtained through the fraud of the debtor, 

and the requesting party did not know of such fraud until after the 

granting of such discharge; [or]

(2) the debtor acquired property that is property of the estate, or 

became entitled to acquire property that would be property of the 

 Case: 15-10804 Document: 00513541230 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2016
No. 15-10804

4

estate, and knowingly and fraudulently failed to report the 

acquisition of or entitlement to such property, or to deliver or 

surrender such property to the trustee.

11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1)-(2). In challenging the discharge revocation on appeal, 

Comu does not contest the bankruptcy court’s underlying finding that he 

committed fraud by, inter alia, concealing substantial assets from the 

bankruptcy proceedings. Rather, he principally argues that the bankruptcy 

court erred in concluding that the creditors “did not know” about the fraud 

prior to discharge. 

As the district court accurately observed, there was sufficient evidence 

to support the bankruptcy court’s finding that Appellees were not aware of 

Comu’s fraud in the bankruptcy proceedings until after discharge. For 

example, both Appellees and the Trustee consistently testified at trial that 

“they did not learn the truth of Comu’s financial situation . . . [or] the scope of 

[Comu’s] fraud, [until] after reviewing documents produced” by Comu in 2013 

during the course of discovery. Given the absence of any clearly contradictory 

evidence, the bankruptcy court was free to credit this testimony in making its 

findings. We therefore agree with the district court that the bankruptcy court 

did not clearly err in finding that Appellees were unaware of Comu’s fraud 

until after the discharge.

Because Comu has presented no other persuasive argument for setting 

aside the bankruptcy court’s order revoking discharge, we AFFIRM. 

 Case: 15-10804 Document: 00513541230 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/09/2016